Although you do have a point here, just to be complete, the number of characters for en.wikipedia.org is of course longer. You would have to compare en.wp.w.org/Example with en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Example - which makes it 12 vs 22 (+article name), which is already more significant. Of course unless someone finds a way to redirect en.wikipedia.org/Example to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Example .
Best, Lodewijk
2011/5/11 Neil Harris neil@tonal.clara.co.uk
On 11/05/11 11:32, HW wrote:
I think the advantage is that it would allow us to generalize the concept behind enwp.org, which is that we want short urls for all languages and
all
projects. I'm thinking along the lines of http://en.wp.w.org . From that angle I would say that short urls of this type have become rather
popular.
You could of course use goo.gl, but then your url is obfuscated, whereas
in
this case it's not.
I can't really see en.wp.w.org (11 characters, four components, hard to remember) as being that much better than en.wikipedia.org (16 characters, three components, easier to remember, contains the Wikipedia branding).
enwp.org, on the other hand, is 8 characters long, has only two components, and is a natural contraction of en.wikipedia.org.
-- Neil
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l